[z3german]

First post so hello fellow revscene-ers! Been loving the forums for a long time but now going to contribute to possibly save my ass!

Its a ticket for running a stop sign. I am just doing this as a learning experience rather than me really feeling its unfair, i am more than willing to plead guilty and just ask for a reduction. My memory says i did a rolling stop (i know you still get a ticket for this), but after watching 0-7 seconds of the videos many times maybe i just tricked myself into thinking that i did a rolling stop because, lets all be honest, most people do roll through stops if they see well ahead that there is no danger.

Here is the video, just watch 0:00-0:07 for just the claimed infringement. Rest of the video is pretty boring.

Did i stop? - YouTube

Anyways here is the official notes from the cop

"In regards to your request for disclosure, please find attached a copy of Cst. (private) notes (front and back) along with a copy of the video obtained from the police vehicle number RI6xxx.

In case the notes on the ticket aren't clear, here is a short synopsis of them:

Writer was southbound on Kwantlen St. Suspect was in front of the writer, same direction of travel. While approaching the intersection of Kwantlen and Lansdowne, the suspect slowed down to about 15km/h but did not fully stop at the stop sign and drove over the painted solid stop line. The wheels were in constant movement. Suspect turned westbound on Lansdowne. Suspect was followed by writer to the traffic light at Lansdowne and Conney. Writer activated his emergency equipment. Suspect stopped about 10m away from the intersection. Drivers Licence and Insurance were valid. Violation Ticket Served. The stop line on Kwantlen was in good shape and clearly visible."

I very much appreciate all your input. Probably based on the input here will determine whether i fight it, or just plead guilty and ask for a reduction. Mucho appreciado muchacho.

[Jgresch]

lets all be honest, most people do roll through stops if they see well ahead that there is no danger.

.

There is no exceptions.... you can't roll through a stop sign.

Also, you did this with a police car behind you?
And the video clearly shows you not even coming close to a stop.

[Marco911]

A rolling stop is an oxymoron. Evidence seems pretty clear to me, what is there to dispute other than wasting the court's time?

[s300ae]

judging from the video... and speaking from experience, you rolled that sign

[Matsuda]

plead guilty, you didn't come to a complete stop

[z3german]

Thanks guys, lol just saw the video and thought it might have been possible.

[taylor192]

You're guilty, yet I'm surprised you got a ticket. That wasn't that bad a roll.

[Death2Theft]

The only hope you have is if the cop doesn't show up but if you plead not guilty and he shows up they might fuck u even harder than if u plead guilty.

[z3german]

You're guilty, yet I'm surprised you got a ticket. That wasn't that bad a roll.

:/, yea cops just being cops. Probably a quota? Lately every morning i see cops waiting on top of the Aberdeen skytrain station ticketing usually old asian ladies trying to get a free ride to either lansdowne or richmond centre.

Its alright with me though (the ticket) I did what i did and i got to pay for the crime. Driving like 90% of the people on the road has its risks (speeding 5-10 over limit, rolling stops, U turns, etc.)

[hirevtuner]

you didn't stop, admit you are wrong and take the fine (maybe you can ask the judge for a reduction) and learn from this mistake and move on

[mikey2781]

rofl retarded cops FTL

cops like this is making it more dangerous for some drivers... i am looking in my rear view mirror every five seconds to make sure no retarded cops are nearby and give me a ticket like this.
what if i was looking in the rear view mirror and some dumb *** jumps in front of my car?

dont be a goody goody and tell me "oooo just follow the laws and you dont have to be aware of cops", fk that who goes 50 in a 50 zone?
who STOPS completely at 4AM at night when you CLEARLY see an empty road 2 miles long?

just sayin.

[smaggs]

If you want to be a dick, the cop did a "rolling stop" also did he not? No excuse if his lights weren't on

[z3german]

If you want to be a dick, the cop did a "rolling stop" also did he not? No excuse if his lights weren't on

Saw that too, but dont think i have the cahonas to say that in court and hope to get away with it LOL

[smaggs]

Saw that too, but dont think i have the cahonas to say that in court and hope to get away with it LOL

Me neither :D lol

I'm with the others...just pity them into a reduction and pay it. I wish they gave these tickets out more often. I've had way too many close calls at a couple 4-ways near my house

[Soundy]

rofl retarded cops FTL

cops like this is making it more dangerous for some drivers... i am looking in my rear view mirror every five seconds to make sure no retarded cops are nearby and give me a ticket like this.

just sayin.

retarded drivers FTL - if you're not breaking the law, you don't need to be watching your mirror all the time. If you're aware of your surroundings, you don't need to be watching the mirror all the time.

just sayin.

[firebird79_00]

Always dispute a ticket, it doesnt matter how guilty you are. I know local cops as well as in Toronto who will tell you to dispute it no matter what. Worst comes to worst you plead guilty and get a reduced fine, or if you get lucky the cop doesnt show. I am disputing a recent ticket even though he let me off on 2 other infractions.

[4444]

Saw that too, but dont think i have the cahonas to say that in court and hope to get away with it LOL

i'd hate to waste court time, as there is NO doubt you rolled it, BUT, i personally would go to court and just to make a stand for the fact that the police officer rolled it too - not that I'd expect to get a reduced fine (probably only got the minimum anyways) nor would i expect to get off from the ticket - but PURELY the principal - stop signs are stupid, i know apples to oranges, but round abouts are way better (but wouldn't work in grid system, also in richmond, would create gridlock at every intersection).

i just got back from the UK, driving there is a dream.

fight it just to voice your displeasure - we, as taxpayers, have the right & freedom to voice our opinion against whatever we want, but you'll still pay regardless

[4444]

Always dispute a ticket, it doesnt matter how guilty you are. I know local cops as well as in Toronto who will tell you to dispute it no matter what. Worst comes to worst you plead guilty and get a reduced fine, or if you get lucky the cop doesnt show. I am disputing a recent ticket even though he let me off on 2 other infractions.

if you are already given the minimum ticket for the offense, you won't get any reduction, potentially extended payment terms

our systems are WAY too lax for allowing people (me included) to fight and win ALL my tickets - the system shouldn't be this easy, really sad (Especialy for more serious crimes)

[z3german]

i'd hate to waste court time, as there is NO doubt you rolled it, BUT, i personally would go to court and just to make a stand for the fact that the police officer rolled it too - not that I'd expect to get a reduced fine (probably only got the minimum anyways) nor would i expect to get off from the ticket - but PURELY the principal - stop signs are stupid, i know apples to oranges, but round abouts are way better (but wouldn't work in grid system, also in richmond, would create gridlock at every intersection).

i just got back from the UK, driving there is a dream.

fight it just to voice your displeasure - we, as taxpayers, have the right & freedom to voice our opinion against whatever we want, but you'll still pay regardless

Hell yes im going to voice that out, you make an excellent point on principle! Man cops get me so fired up :gun:

[RecklessNS]

rofl retarded cops FTL

cops like this is making it more dangerous for some drivers... i am looking in my rear view mirror every five seconds to make sure no retarded cops are nearby and give me a ticket like this.
what if i was looking in the rear view mirror and some dumb *** jumps in front of my car?

dont be a goody goody and tell me "oooo just follow the laws and you dont have to be aware of cops", fk that who goes 50 in a 50 zone?
who STOPS completely at 4AM at night when you CLEARLY see an empty road 2 miles long?

just sayin.

let me guess your one of those guys who has their seat all the way down so you can barely see over the steering wheel while doing 80 in a 50 zone thinking your the shit kk man the reason we do complete stops is cause unexpected things might come up, when you do a complete stop if gives you a second to CLEAR THE INTERSECTION you know look left centre right then proceed especially when its at 4am you don't know if there is a drunk guy thats going to be running out in the middle of the street honestly buddy don't come on here acting like a badass encouraging people to use bad habits like yours.

just saying.

BTW OP hope everything pans out for you sucks that he got you for that but makes sense

[gars]

If you want to be a dick, the cop did a "rolling stop" also did he not? No excuse if his lights weren't on

I don't understand why people think police officers need to have their lights on to roll through the stop sign. There's nothing in the MVA about that.

Exemption for emergency vehicles

122 (1) Despite anything in this Part, but subject to subsections (2) and (4), a driver of an emergency vehicle may do the following:

[...]

(b) proceed past a red traffic control signal or stop sign without stopping;

Motor Vehicle Act (http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96318_05)

[Soundy]

Always dispute a ticket, it doesnt matter how guilty you are. I know local cops as well as in Toronto who will tell you to dispute it no matter what. Worst comes to worst you plead guilty and get a reduced fine, or if you get lucky the cop doesnt show. I am disputing a recent ticket even though he let me off on 2 other infractions.

This is why our courts are so backed up and drunk drivers are going free because their cases are taking too long to be heard. Congratulations on being part of the problem, asshole.

[AstulzerRZD]

Funny how I've been in the car, at the exact same intersection, at roughly the same time of day, and received the same ticket at that intersection...

[z3german]

Funny how I've been in the car, at the exact same intersection, at roughly the same time of day, and received the same ticket at that intersection...

Wow... cops a jerk...

[Soundy]

Wow... drivers breakin' the law... gettin' tickets for it... what a shocker.

[taylor192]

If you want to be a dick, the cop did a "rolling stop" also did he not? No excuse if his lights weren't on

Saw that too, but dont think i have the cahonas to say that in court and hope to get away with it LOL

Officers are allowed to break the law to enforce the law, mentioning it in court would have no impact.

I once had an officer tailgate only a few feet from my bumper after he caught me speeding. It was a dick move and I didn't appreciate it, hell I even considered slamming on my brakes, yet I was in the wrong and he was doing his job so sometimes you just gotta take a breath and relax.

[taylor192]

This is why our courts are so backed up and drunk drivers are going free because their cases are taking too long to be heard. Congratulations on being part of the problem, asshole.

The correct response is:

This is why roadside punishments are being enacted, cause abuse of the court system isn't providing "justice" to society. Thanks for encouraging future roadside punishments.

[4444]

Officers are allowed to break the law to enforce the law, mentioning it in court would have no impact.

I once had an officer tailgate only a few feet from my bumper after he caught me speeding. It was a dick move and I didn't appreciate it, hell I even considered slamming on my brakes, yet I was in the wrong and he was doing his job so sometimes you just gotta take a breath and relax.

while this is true, and i agree completely, i would still bring it up so as to show my distain for the fact that one is receiving a ticket for something as futile as a rolling stop on an empty street, which then the police officer does himself. Now, had the police officer truly believed this maneuver was endangering people, then clearly he wouldn't have done it himself, this was not a chase.

again, i wouldn't expect anything to come from this other than maybe getting 10 people in the room to think about things, and that's good enough for me (i really think we need a complete overhaul of laws, driving standards, driving education, our roads etc. and i'd love to start this movement)

[z3german]

while this is true, and i agree completely, i would still bring it up so as to show my distain for the fact that one is receiving a ticket for something as futile as a rolling stop on an empty street, which then the police officer does himself. Now, had the police officer truly believed this maneuver was endangering people, then clearly he wouldn't have done it himself, this was not a chase.

again, i wouldn't expect anything to come from this other than maybe getting 10 people in the room to think about things, and that's good enough for me (i really think we need a complete overhaul of laws, driving standards, driving education, our roads etc. and i'd love to start this movement)

Lead the way, i will follow

[Sky_High]

Skimmed through OP's post, and watched the YouTube video without fully reading last section.

Thought the "rolling stop" occurred at 00:07-00:08.
Watch up to 01:10, then realized that wasn't OP's dash cam....but the police's :okay:

[z3german]

Skimmed through OP's post, and watched the YouTube video without fully reading last section.

Thought the "rolling stop" occurred at 00:07-00:08.
Watch up to 01:10, then realized that wasn't OP's dash cam....but the police's :okay:

LOL:awwyeah::lawl:

[smaggs]

I don't understand why people think police officers need to have their lights on to roll through the stop sign. There's nothing in the MVA about that.



Motor Vehicle Act (http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96318_05)

hmm..thanks. Did not know this, however "4444" is on the same page as me with my intentions

[FerrariEnzo]

what is a rolling stop? if your still moving, how do you stop?
if what you mean is slow down to a crawl while not stopping at the stop line or red light, then yes you will get a ticket...

[gretzky]

dispute it .

[gars]

while this is true, and i agree completely, i would still bring it up so as to show my distain for the fact that one is receiving a ticket for something as futile as a rolling stop on an empty street, which then the police officer does himself. Now, had the police officer truly believed this maneuver was endangering people, then clearly he wouldn't have done it himself, this was not a chase.

again, i wouldn't expect anything to come from this other than maybe getting 10 people in the room to think about things, and that's good enough for me (i really think we need a complete overhaul of laws, driving standards, driving education, our roads etc. and i'd love to start this movement)

Laws can't always be left for drivers to interpret though. The law for a stop sign needs to say drivers have to stop. It can't say drivers must stop unless they deem it's safe to just roll through. I agree with you, in that our education here is lacking compared to some other countries (people loooove to compare us to Germany) - but people also forget that Germany is extremely strict with their laws - People actually drive 50 in a 50 zone.

I understand where you're coming from - and some police officers will turn a blind eye to things that they deem ok. If they wrote a ticket for every single infraction they see, I'm sure they will never make it down the block. But in this case - the PO was not incorrect to issue a ticket.

[Shorn]

honestly: you just got unlucky.

i saw the video and to me that's pretty much the way everybody drives.
anyone who says they do complete stops at stop signs and drive on a regular basis are lying, i don't care what you say. even my mom doesn't drive like that, ESPECIALLY AT NIGHT.

pay for it, but just learn to recognize cop headlights at night.. it helps.

[firebird79_00]

This is why our courts are so backed up and drunk drivers are going free because their cases are taking too long to be heard. Congratulations on being part of the problem, asshole.

Honestly its only because cops always tell me to fight it, if they didnt i would just pay it. But a cop telling you to fight it has to say something.

[falcon]

I like how the notes say the cop put his lights on further down the road, but he clearly rolls the stop sign too. Without his lights on, meaning he broke the law as well as cops have to follow all the same road rules when their lights are off.

[freakshow]

Without his lights on, meaning he broke the law as well as cops have to follow all the same road rules when their lights are off.No they don't..

[skylinergtr]

if you are worried about the fine or penalty points, then dispute the ticket. plead guilty, as you did "break the law" for that rolling stop of yours. you might be able to have a reduction in points or the fine itself.

if this was in richmond, you have a better chance of having an officer not show up to the court date (you never know still). Apparently Richmond is the training ground for police officers, so by the time you get your court date in 6months to over 1 year, they might be working on a new jurisdiction.

[falcon]

No they don't..

Yes, they do.

The only exception to my understanding is if they are on the way to a crime scene/break in/whatever. He is clearly not in a "chase" in this video, and also clearly rolled the stop sign.

[gars]

Yes, they do.

The only exception to my understanding is if they are on the way to a crime scene/break in/whatever. He is clearly not in a "chase" in this video, and also clearly rolled the stop sign.

I posted this on the previous page.

The different police detachments might have their own internal regulations that I'm unaware of, but the BC MVA does not state they need their lights on to qualify for the exemption.

If you want to be a dick, the cop did a "rolling stop" also did he not? No excuse if his lights weren't on

I don't understand why people think police officers need to have their lights on to roll through the stop sign. There's nothing in the MVA about that.

Exemption for emergency vehicles

122 (1) Despite anything in this Part, but subject to subsections (2) and (4), a driver of an emergency vehicle may do the following:

(a) exceed the speed limit;

(b) proceed past a red traffic control signal or stop sign without stopping;

(c) disregard rules and traffic control devices governing direction of movement or turning in specified directions;

(d) stop or stand.

(2) The driver of an emergency vehicle must not exercise the privileges granted by subsection (1) except in accordance with the regulations.

(3) [Repealed 1997-30-2.]

(4) The driver of an emergency vehicle exercising a privilege granted by subsection (1) must drive with due regard for safety, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the following:

(a) the nature, condition and use of the highway;

(b) the amount of traffic that is on, or might reasonably be expected to be on, the highway;

(c) the nature of the use being made of the emergency vehicle at the time.

Motor Vehicle Act (http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96318_05)

[z3german]

if you are worried about the fine or penalty points, then dispute the ticket. plead guilty, as you did "break the law" for that rolling stop of yours. you might be able to have a reduction in points or the fine itself.

if this was in richmond, you have a better chance of having an officer not show up to the court date (you never know still). Apparently Richmond is the training ground for police officers, so by the time you get your court date in 6months to over 1 year, they might be working on a new jurisdiction.

Interesting! No wonder criminals in Richmond never get caught, cops here all noobies! lol!

Sorry if i was no clear in my original message. I have disputed the ticket, this thread was created to get more opinions on whether i should plead guilty or fight the ticket. But from the over whelming response from you guys ive decided to just plead guilty and hope they give me a reduction. Court date March 6! Wish me luck lol!:alonehappy:

[GabAlmighty]

I can't remember the last time I came to a complete stop and felt my suspension rebound.

I once had an officer tailgate only a few feet from my bumper after he caught me speeding. It was a dick move and I didn't appreciate it, hell I even considered slamming on my brakes, yet I was in the wrong and he was doing his job so sometimes you just gotta take a breath and relax.

See I've had this happen once or twice to me too. If you slam your brakes because you see a raccoon jump out in front of your car and the cruiser rear ends you, if it gonna be his fault?

I'm assuming that if you did "brake check" a cop and he hit you that they would probably do something to make you regret doing it. But just considering the main question, would it be his fault?

[taylor192]

See I've had this happen once or twice to me too. If you slam your brakes because you see a raccoon jump out in front of your car and the cruiser rear ends you, if it gonna be his fault?

I'm assuming that if you did "brake check" a cop and he hit you that they would probably do something to make you regret doing it. But just considering the main question, would it be his fault?
I've asked this before, and the answer was "you better be a good actor".

How nervous are you going to be lying in a court of law. Plus you'll probably get a dangerous driving ticket right away and have to fight that too.

In the end, not worth it. If they are tailgating you, its most likely for a reason. The reason in my case was probably my friend's car had all the windows blacked out and it happened late at night.

What I do now is just pull over/change lanes. The cop can either decide to follow me in which case I know I'm in trouble and pull over and stop, or he just continues on and I know he was just being a douche canoe. Its inconvenient, yet the best alternative.

[GabAlmighty]

I've asked this before, and the answer was "you better be a good actor".

How nervous are you going to be lying in a court of law. Plus you'll probably get a dangerous driving ticket right away and have to fight that too.


Ya that's pretty much what I figured, definitely not worth the hassle.

[124Y]

I'll admit, I used to stop after the line, until I almost ran over a pedestrian at night, running to catch the bus. That mu'fucker popped outta nowhere :lawl:
From that moment on, I tell myself to always stop on the line, look both ways, and then proceed.

[optiblue]

I would just plead guilty as that video clearly shows that you didn't fully come to a stop before you turned. That said, I'm still waiting for my courtdate for my "following too close" ticket last May in which I wished that I had an accident recorder back then :( The courts are so backed up! It's going to cost tax payers more money than what my ticket is worth, but it's the principle of the matter!

[z3german]

I would just plead guilty as that video clearly shows that you didn't fully come to a stop before you turned. That said, I'm still waiting for my courtdate for my "following too close" ticket last May in which I wished that I had an accident recorder back then :( The courts are so backed up! It's going to cost tax payers more money than what my ticket is worth, but it's the principle of the matter!

Did a cop see you and pull you over? Or was this an accident?

If i cop pulled you over ask for disclosure as i did to retrieve the video footage i have in the original post. You also get the notes of the officer and whatever evidence he might have on you. If you need it PM me ill give you the details and a template to work on.

[4444]

Laws can't always be left for drivers to interpret though. The law for a stop sign needs to say drivers have to stop. It can't say drivers must stop unless they deem it's safe to just roll through. I agree with you, in that our education here is lacking compared to some other countries (people loooove to compare us to Germany) - but people also forget that Germany is extremely strict with their laws - People actually drive 50 in a 50 zone.

I understand where you're coming from - and some police officers will turn a blind eye to things that they deem ok. If they wrote a ticket for every single infraction they see, I'm sure they will never make it down the block. But in this case - the PO was not incorrect to issue a ticket.

you get what i mean here, which is good - the rule is a rule, it was broken, it sucks - i just think we need to rethink the rules, however teh sad thing is we are just not good enough drivers to change the rules (which would benefit us all) - first step is significantly increased driver education and increased standards required to get a license. then, and only then, can we impliment more yield signs, or variable stop systems (for example why do traffic lights need to be on for intersections in teh middle of the night, why not have flashing green for principal roads (granville, oak)/flashing reds for the side streets (a granville & 41st would still have full time traffic lights as this is a major intersection) - ideas like this should be considered

i only say that as an example as when i lived in tsawwassen, i used to get so annoyed at stopping at red lights for nothing, not another car anywhere at 2am in teh morning - just a waste of my time & natural resources

i really wish this were on ppl's lips as opposed to 'speed kills' which is what EVERYONE thinks - speed only kills here because our roads suck, our pedestrians have full right of way, and our drivers are terrible. if speed killed, would germany, england, the US not have a significnatly higher road death rate, as they drive faster there

/rant

[jbsali]

you rolled through a stop sign and went over the stop line at the red light. pay your ticket and move on..

[Marco911]

This is why our courts are so backed up and drunk drivers are going free because their cases are taking too long to be heard. Congratulations on being part of the problem, asshole.

1) Drunk driving cases are tried in provincial court, not traffic court.
2) If cops gave less b.s. tickets for minor infractions, like catching speeders at the bottom of a hill, it would go a long way to minimizing court resources.

[monkeywrench]

There's no exception for rolling stops at a stop sign. You must reach a dead stop for it to be legal. You have evidence for the police, good job!

[falcon]

you get what i mean here, which is good - the rule is a rule, it was broken, it sucks - i just think we need to rethink the rules, however teh sad thing is we are just not good enough drivers to change the rules (which would benefit us all) - first step is significantly increased driver education and increased standards required to get a license. then, and only then, can we impliment more yield signs, or variable stop systems (for example why do traffic lights need to be on for intersections in teh middle of the night, why not have flashing green for principal roads (granville, oak)/flashing reds for the side streets (a granville & 41st would still have full time traffic lights as this is a major intersection) - ideas like this should be considered

i only say that as an example as when i lived in tsawwassen, i used to get so annoyed at stopping at red lights for nothing, not another car anywhere at 2am in teh morning - just a waste of my time & natural resources

i really wish this were on ppl's lips as opposed to 'speed kills' which is what EVERYONE thinks - speed only kills here because our roads suck, our pedestrians have full right of way, and our drivers are terrible. if speed killed, would germany, england, the US not have a significnatly higher road death rate, as they drive faster there

/rant

They dont' drive that much faster here in Germany. The only difference is the left lane is kind of a free for all, but not everywhere. Many freeways here have speed limits around 110-120kph or so. But they are really twisty and even at night I don't feel safe driving that speed on them. Also, here in Germany when there IS a speed limit, everyone follows it. The penalties are really high and points system.

Here, parents dont' save for a University education because it's practically free (say, 500euro/semester at some of the top schools in Germany) they save for their kids' drivers license which can cost over 2000euro when it's all said and done. Lessons are not optional, they are mandatory. You can't drive until you're 18 either.

I agree with all the licensing stuff they have here and think it should be implemented in Canada (aside from the 18/yr age, just due to the fact we don't have a wicked train/transit system like they do here and it would be impossible to get around efficiently).

[imp>dom]

HOW did u get this video?

[SupraTTturbo2jz]

you did a rolling stop but, so did the cop while he was following you without his lights on. Trying to find excuse to give a b.s. ticket. Fight the ticket cause the cop should have done a complete stop if he was completely with the law.

[Soundy]

you did a rolling stop but, so did the cop while he was following you without his lights on. Trying to find excuse to give a b.s. ticket. Fight the ticket cause the cop should have done a complete stop if he was completely with the law.

You obviously haven't read the entire thread.

[z3german]

HOW did u get this video?

You send them a letter asking them for disclosure. Disclosure is basically any evidence the officer is going to use in court against you, its part of your freedom of rights to have a fair trial. If you want PM me ill send you a template!

[imp>dom]

^ pm sent

[dL]

Here's my take.

Basically, you are guilty. I don't even know why you need to post your evidence here. You can even watch it yourself and come to a conclusion. However.

I would suggest you dispute the ticket as there is a possible chance where the cop may not show up. However, if the cop does show up, then simply plead guilty and pay up. There is no point in raising the point that the cop failed to stop completely as they have the rights to break the law to enforce a law. BUT.

Disputing a ticket means you have to attend court. That may take away one of your work days or vacation or whatever. Whether this is worth it to you or not is up to you to decide. If you do pay early, at least you have $25 deduction which is not bad but I think you will get 2 to 3 (?) points deducted since you admit guilt.

No offence to anyone, while to some people disputing may seem like an unethical move, I seriously question the people who fail anyone in this post to reflect on yourself. Have you ever not speeded? Have you ever not performed a rolling stop? Suggesting a dispute is an option provided to us. Whether you choose to dispute or not is based on your decision and conscience.

Sadly, law is law and when the police officer decides to enforce it strictly, technically 95% of the citizens out there can easily get a ticket. To me, your action is one of the typical behaviours of what people normally do (i.e. 10km/h over speed limit, rolling stop, left turn into the right lane, right turn into the left lane, etc.) Is it right? No. Is it dangerous? Depends. In your situation, it is not dangerous because that intersection is extremely wide and you can easily see the oncoming traffic on Lansdowne although this behaviour can lead to an accident in other situations. This is a good lesson to reflect on the potential consequences that can possibly happen in another setting and situation in the future.

If I were the cop, I would still pull you over but give you a warning about the consequences that can happen if you do perform a rolling stop. That's just me. Sadly, cops in Richmond are far from that.

Not sure if you checked this page out yet, but take a read here (http://www.revscene.net/forums/126982-how-deal-violation-ticket.html). It's in the police forum.

Hope that helps.

dL

[Soundy]

No offence to anyone, while to some people disputing may seem like an unethical move, I seriously question the people who fail anyone in this post to reflect on yourself. Have you ever not speeded? Have you ever not performed a rolling stop? Suggesting a dispute is an option provided to us. Whether you choose to dispute or not is based on your decision and conscience.
The right to dispute is there to provide the innocent the chance to defend themselves against undeserved charges. It is NOT there for the cheap or selfish to waste the cop's and court's time in the vague hope that they might get to skate on a well-deserved ticket.

In your situation, it is not dangerous because that intersection is extremely wide and you can easily see the oncoming traffic on Lansdowne although this behaviour can lead to an accident in other situations.
I'm sure a certain van driver recently in Ontario thought it was safe to roll through a stop sign, because it was the middle of the night on little-used country roads across flat, open country with lots of visibility... right up until the grill of a flatdeck smacked him in the face and ended the lives of eleven people.

[4444]

They dont' drive that much faster here in Germany. The only difference is the left lane is kind of a free for all, but not everywhere. Many freeways here have speed limits around 110-120kph or so. But they are really twisty and even at night I don't feel safe driving that speed on them. Also, here in Germany when there IS a speed limit, everyone follows it. The penalties are really high and points system.

Here, parents dont' save for a University education because it's practically free (say, 500euro/semester at some of the top schools in Germany) they save for their kids' drivers license which can cost over 2000euro when it's all said and done. Lessons are not optional, they are mandatory. You can't drive until you're 18 either.

I agree with all the licensing stuff they have here and think it should be implemented in Canada (aside from the 18/yr age, just due to the fact we don't have a wicked train/transit system like they do here and it would be impossible to get around efficiently).
i completely agree with everything you say, but:

110-120kph is quite a bit faster than 80-90 we get on motorways - so much so that 121 in an 80 zone will lose you your license here, whereas you'll be doing the limit in Germany

and its true that because speed limits are reasonable in europe, ppl follow them - in england you drive at 80mph on the motorway (the accepted limit, the actual limit is 70, but no policeman will ever ticket you for 80, that is accepted), some drive a tad slower, some drive a tad faster, but 80mph is a great speed limit.

education needs to go up here, insurance for <25 yr olds needs to go up here (i say that as a >25 yr old male - i'm now subsidizing <25 yr old idiots with my annual premiums), infrastructure needs to go up, respect for the vehicle needs to go up (they kill, things like drinking and driving shouldn't even be an issue as cars can kill you and others way too easily), and speed limits needs to go up

again, /rant :)

[Soundy]

education needs to go up here, insurance for <25 yr olds needs to go up here (i say that as a >25 yr old male - i'm now subsidizing <25 yr old idiots with my annual premiums),

In BC, your age has NOTHING AT ALL to do with your insurance premiums.

[4444]

In BC, your age has NOTHING AT ALL to do with your insurance premiums.

that's right - but they should

any other place where the government isn't in control of everything in our life, males under the age of 25 pay SIGNIFICANT premiums for insurance, as they are proven to be a higher risk

[Soundy]

that's right - but they should

any other place where the government isn't in control of everything in our life, males under the age of 25 pay SIGNIFICANT premiums for insurance, as they are proven to be a higher risk
And that alone is unique in the insurance world. No other form of insurance bases risk premiums on the participant's AGE.

[4444]

And that alone is unique in the insurance world. No other form of insurance bases risk premiums on the participant's AGE.

its based on fact - there is proof that <25 yr old males have a higher risk of causing an accident than just about anyone else

just like how i would pay higher contents insurance for the contents of my apartment in downtown vancouver is higher than it would be in say tsawwassen, on the basis that it is more likely you will have a break in or 'issue' in downtown

this discussion/disagreement is pointless - i'd be really interested to see whether there are any other places (non government run) that don't charge premiums for <25yr old males

[Soundy]

its based on fact - there is proof that <25 yr old males have a higher risk of causing an accident than just about anyone else

just like how i would pay higher contents insurance for the contents of my apartment in downtown vancouver is higher than it would be in say tsawwassen, on the basis that it is more likely you will have a break in or 'issue' in downtown
It's not the same, actually, because you can choose where you live, and if you want to factor home insurance costs into that choice, you can. You don't get to choose your age, and in general, don't get to choose your gender. In fact, everything that ICBC's rates are determined on - vehicle choice, vehicle use, type of driving, area of residence - are all things that you have a choice in. Things like age, sex, race, ethnicity, and other factors you have no control over, don't come in play, nor should they.

Besides, why is the "dividing line" set at 25? Why not 23? Or 27? Is there some switch in the mail brain that flips on your 25th birthday that magically imbues greater skill and responsibility behind the wheel?

this discussion/disagreement is pointless - i'd be really interested to see whether there are any other places (non government run) that don't charge premiums for <25yr old males
This has been discussed before... there are other jurisdictions where this is not the case. The EU has actually banned the use of gender in assessing insurance risk.

Ultimately, basing YOUR insurance risk on YOUR driving record is ultimately more fair than basing it on the demographic you're a part of.

[4444]

It's not the same, actually, because you can choose where you live, and if you want to factor home insurance costs into that choice, you can. You don't get to choose your age, and in general, don't get to choose your gender. In fact, everything that ICBC's rates are determined on - vehicle choice, vehicle use, type of driving, area of residence - are all things that you have a choice in. Things like age, sex, race, ethnicity, and other factors you have no control over, don't come in play, nor should they.

Besides, why is the "dividing line" set at 25? Why not 23? Or 27? Is there some switch in the mail brain that flips on your 25th birthday that magically imbues greater skill and responsibility behind the wheel?


This has been discussed before... there are other jurisdictions where this is not the case. The EU has actually banned the use of gender in assessing insurance risk.

Ultimately, basing YOUR insurance risk on YOUR driving record is ultimately more fair than basing it on the demographic you're a part of.

statistics mandate the 25 yr old switchover, on average people (males particularily) become more responsible, safe drivers.

male/female, i couldn't care less for, but definitely <25 yr old people should be paying more, based on STATISTICS, fact, not perception, ignornace or anything else.

my example re: home contents insurance was not to illustrate an apple vs. an orange, as you have provided, rather the fact that age is a factor in assessing ones insurance risk, much as one's age, based on statistics on at fault incidents, is, or at least should be in a free and open market insurance sector (which BC isn't thanks to our socialist government), a factor in determining one's insurance premium.

again, you seem to be taking what i'm saying and then arguing apples vs. oranges, thus there is no point continuing this = the conclusion from all of this is that >25 yr olds are paying a premium that should be passed down onto <25 year old, yet ANOTHER reason government intervention skews fair market rates, which is not a good thing for the population on the whole.

[MindBomber]

that's right - but they should

any other place where the government isn't in control of everything in our life, males under the age of 25 pay SIGNIFICANT premiums for insurance, as they are proven to be a higher risk

That would be somewhat redundant given that the higher accident rate among young people is a result largely of inexperience and young drivers begin insuring a car with no experience discount, compared to mature drivers who almost all have significant discounts to reflect experience.

I would not support raising rates on an entire group, regardless of any bias I may have as a young male. Set rates based on individual driving records, punish people with multiple accidents or VTs with ruthlessly high rates if need be.

[ToneCapone]

You send them a letter asking them for disclosure. Disclosure is basically any evidence the officer is going to use in court against you, its part of your freedom of rights to have a fair trial. If you want PM me ill send you a template!

nevermind :(

[Soundy]

male/female, i couldn't care less for, but definitely <25 yr old people should be paying more, based on STATISTICS, fact, not perception, ignornace or anything else.
Basing it on your individual driving record IS basing it on FACT. Statistics if just punishing good drivers for the collective sins of a few bad ones.

again, you seem to be taking what i'm saying and then arguing apples vs. oranges, thus there is no point continuing this
YOU'RE the one comparing auto insurance premiums to home insurance. This is the second time you've surrendered, though, so I shall graciously accept your concession.

the conclusion from all of this is that >25 yr olds are paying a premium that should be passed down onto <25 year old,
I'm 43. My insurance for the last 27+ years has been based on my own driving record and nobody else's. I have no need to see good drivers <25 subsidize my rates.